Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Topics > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 02-08-2007, 04:17 PM
elwoodblues elwoodblues is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sweet Home, Chicago
Posts: 4,485
Default Re: Should the state be allowed to force little girls............

I see, so you are outraged that a kid has to get 3 doses of a particular vaccine to make it effective and, thus, count that as "3 vaccines." Then you assume that when a kid goes in to get vaccinated, say on their 12 month appointment, that the get 1 shot for each booster (that none are combined.) It is from this that you reach the conclusion that kids are getting 20-30 vaccines now. In addition, you suggest that the minor risks of infection and allergic reaction outweigh the benefits of immunizations. Sounds strange.

Luckily you and your lucky children can opt out of such an abusive process.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 02-08-2007, 04:46 PM
PLOlover PLOlover is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,465
Default Re: Should the state be allowed to force little girls............

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds strange.

[/ QUOTE ]

The japanese agree with me. Why do you think there has been a big deal about mercury in vaccines? do you think it's good for you?

Maybe details a little fuzzy, but you have to admit that kids today get more vaccines than kids 20-30 years ago. That was my point, the details don't really matter.

btw, I notice hepB was in infant vaccine list. there's very little reason for an infant to get a hepB vac.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 02-08-2007, 05:09 PM
elwoodblues elwoodblues is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sweet Home, Chicago
Posts: 4,485
Default Re: Should the state be allowed to force little girls............

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe details a little fuzzy, but you have to admit that kids today get more vaccines than kids 20-30 years ago. That was my point, the details don't really matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the details really do matter.

[ QUOTE ]
btw, I notice hepB was in infant vaccine list. there's very little reason for an infant to get a hepB vac.

[/ QUOTE ]

The HepB virus can be transmitted during birth. Kids (particularly kids in daycare) are swapping fluids all the frickin' time. From the article in wikipedia:

"In moderate prevalence areas, the disease is predominantly spread among children...only 5% of new-borns that acquire the infection from their mother at birth will clear the infection. Of those infected between the age of one to six, 70% will clear the infection. When the infection is not cleared, one becomes a chronic carrier of the virus."

I'd say there are reasons to give it to children.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 02-08-2007, 05:12 PM
PLOlover PLOlover is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,465
Default Re: Should the state be allowed to force little girls............

[ QUOTE ]
No, the details really do matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I guess you think infants in 1970 got the same amount of vaccines that infants today do?
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 02-08-2007, 05:21 PM
PLOlover PLOlover is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,465
Default Re: Should the state be allowed to force little girls............

[ QUOTE ]
The HepB virus can be transmitted during birth. Kids (particularly kids in daycare) are swapping fluids all the frickin' time. From the article in wikipedia:

"In moderate prevalence areas, the disease is predominantly spread among children...only 5% of new-borns that acquire the infection from their mother at birth will clear the infection. Of those infected between the age of one to six, 70% will clear the infection. When the infection is not cleared, one becomes a chronic carrier of the virus."

I'd say there are reasons to give it to children.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I agree with you that if a person is going to be institutionalized, engage in gay sex, or use IV drugs, then hepB is a very good idea.

But since it takes 2 years or 3 months or whatever, 3 shots, to do a hepB immunization, I doubt it would help with mother-child birth transmission. In any case, even if it did, it could be done on a case by case basis when the mother tests ;positive for hepB.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 02-08-2007, 08:29 PM
John Kilduff John Kilduff is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,903
Default Re: Should the state be allowed to force little girls............

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it is immoral, and should be illegal, for the state to FORCE people to get a vaccine for any disease that they can essentially avoid on their own should they choose to do so

[/ QUOTE ]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I'm not following you. Would you please explain?
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 02-08-2007, 10:20 PM
PLOlover PLOlover is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,465
Default Re: Should the state be allowed to force little girls............

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I'm not following you. Would you please explain?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what he means is that in cases like this people are "cunningly coerced" into doing things, not technically forced.

Kinda like if a police officer knocks on your door and "asks" to search your house. He can coerce you into waiving your rights, but he cannot "force" you to.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 02-08-2007, 11:53 PM
Analyst Analyst is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: I see dead money
Posts: 1,261
Default Re: Should the state be allowed to force little girls............

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see much benefit (and possibly some problems related to the length of protection) with the chicken pox vaccine

[/ QUOTE ]

Part of the issue with the chicken pox vaccine is that while there are potentially horrible results if you get chicken pox with little down-side to vaccination.

[/ QUOTE ]

Note my comment "related to the length of protection". Chicken pox is, as you say, quite bad if you get it as an adult. If the immunization becomes less effective after 20, 30, 40 years (and I don't know that's the case), then people will become vulnerable at an age where the disease is a serious health risk rather than a childhood nuisance that confers lifelong immunity.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.